Impossible evolutionary steps?

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that order cannot spontaneously arise out of disorder which is required for evolution to occur."

Nope.

My thermodymanics textbook states the second law as follows.

"No apparatus can operate in such a way that its only effect is to convert heat absorbed by a system completely into work."

"No process is possible which consists solely in the transfer of heat from one temperature level to a higher one."

"It is impossible by a cyclic process to convert the heat absorbed by a system completely into work."

Introduction to Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics Smith and Van Ness 4th Edition 1987

Now, tell us which of these statements matches your assertion.

Second, give us one hypothesized step in, say, the evolution of man from our last common ancestor with the other apes that violates the 2LOT. It would help to show your work.

"There are at least three aspects or ways to express the Second Law:

1. As a measure of the increased unavailability of the energy of a system for useful work. [Classical Thermodynamics]."

Yes, this is thermodynamic entropy.

"2. As a measure of the increased disorder, randomness, or probability of the arrangement of the components of the system. [Statistical Thermodynamics]"

Yes, this is also a way to express entropy and a very valuable way. But you must be careful here to use proper definitions. The disorder of entropy in thermodynamics is at the molecular level. It does not apply to disorder at macro scales!

"3. As a measure of the increasingly confused information in the transmission of the coded message through a system. [Informational thermodynamics] "

This is not thermodynamics. Information theory does have its own concept of entropy but it is not thermodynamic entropy. You cannot lump this in as part of the 2LOT.

You need to read the three statements expressing the Second Law again and then "collapse in deepest humiliation". By the way there is more than one textbook on Thermodynamics.

As far as your remarks about Information Theory, Marion Tribus, who I believe is a pioneer in this field wrote: "It is certain that the conceptual connection between information and the Second Law of Thermodynamics is now firmly established."

 

[UTEOTW]

Then, please, give us one step in the evolution of man from our last common ancestor with the other apes that is prohibited by 2LOT and tell us why that particular step is prohibited. If entropy really is a problem, then it should not be a very difficult request.

"You need to read the three statements expressing the Second Law again and then "collapse in deepest humiliation". By the way there is more than one textbook on Thermodynamics."

I am not sure why. The three statements I provided and the normal statements for the second law in thermodynamics. They have nothing to do with information or with what most people think of as order and disorder. The disorder is a statistical concept about how things are viewed at a molecular level. Let me give you an analogy.

Let's say I have one mole of nitrogen gas and one mole of oxygen gas. I mix them in a spherical cyclinder. Now, let's suppose that somehow all of the oxygen molecules end up in the top half of the sphere and all of the nitrogen molecules in the bottom half. How many different ways can you look at this mixture and se the same thing? The only way is to rotate the sphere about an axis running through the top and bottom. The gasses have taken on a very ordered and highly unlikely state. The entropy is low.

Now imagine the gasses mix. Oxygen and nitrogen spread evenly through the sphere. Now, every view you take of the sphere has the same appearance. There is no order to how the molecules are distributed. The molecules are distributed in a very probible state. The entropy is high.

(You actually need to add a logarithm in there.)

This is profoundly different than the type of disorder most people think of.

And there are many textbooks on thermodynamics, but I would like to see one that attempts a different statement of the second law.

"As far as your remarks about Information Theory, Marion Tribus, who I believe is a pioneer in this field wrote: "It is certain that the conceptual connection between information and the Second Law of Thermodynamics is now firmly established." "

Read the statement again carefully. He can be considered to be correct by stating that there is a conceptual link between the two. There are some parallels between the entropy of information theory and that of thermodynamics, but there are not physically related concepts.

Since you brought up Tribus, you might be interested in an anecdote he liked to tell. The anecdote tells how Von Neumann persuaded Shannon to call the uncertainty function of information theory "entropy." The quote is "You should call it entropy for two reasons. In the first place your uncertainty function has been used in statistical mechanics under that name, so it already has a name. In the second place, and more important, no one knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage."

At this point I will return to the question that never gets answered. What is one proposed step that entropy prevents and how?

 

[Glory Bound]

What gets me about the idea of an eye evolving is this: How did the creature (or it's DNA, or whatever) decide that vision was a good thing that needed to be developed? Seems like intelligence to me...?? (by the way, whatever decided my eyes should be the way they are really screwed up!)

 

[UTEOTW]

There was no decision to be made.

Molecules that interact with light are ancient and many are related to molecules very common to life. These molecules have been in use since the time all life was single celled.

Being able to sense light can be useful. For a multicellar animal, having only a handful of cells dedicated to this function is more efficient that having them all involved.

Putting them in a particular spot is beneficial. Having the spot curve inward in beneficial. Covering the indentation with a clear membrane is beneficial. (The protein for this is already around and doing other things.) Rounding the cavity to make a pinhole camera is benficial. Thickening the clear covering to focus light is beneficial. Uh-oh, now you have an eye.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Phillip:
This thread is to discuss steps that I believe would be impossible for evolution to take due to intermediary steps that would not fit the evolutionary theory.

But, I thought that, with God, all things are possible.

This type of thinking is fruitless. YEC's will insist that creation is possible because God can do anything, yet some (but not all) will also say that it is impossible for God to have created using evolution. Regardless of whether we are YEC, OEC, theistic evolution, or in believe that the earth is sitting on an elephant riding on the back of a turtle, the fact is that God is completely capable of having created everything in any manner he wishes, including, but not limited to, slow changes over long periods of time, or instantly in six days.

Let's not belittle our own arguement by saying God can't do something, just because we don't think it happenned a certain way.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
... but I lost interest when I became interested in modern 10th grade girls.

Then, clearly, your eyes were adequately developed in 10th grade

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip:
This thread is to discuss steps that I believe would be impossible for evolution to take due to intermediary steps that would not fit the evolutionary theory.

But, I thought that, with God, all things are possible.

This type of thinking is fruitless. YEC's will insist that creation is possible because God can do anything, yet some (but not all) will also say that it is impossible for God to have created using evolution. Regardless of whether we are YEC, OEC, theistic evolution, or in believe that the earth is sitting on an elephant riding on the back of a turtle, the fact is that God is completely capable of having created everything in any manner he wishes, including, but not limited to, slow changes over long periods of time, or instantly in six days.

Let's not belittle our own arguement by saying God can't do something, just because we don't think it happenned a certain way. </font>[/QUOTE]John, You kind of have that backwards don't you? It is primarily those who favor evolution that say that God "could not" have created the world according to the literal interpretation of Genesis (unless of course He engaged in dishonesty by letting science interpret the data wrong).

I have not and won't say that evolution is impossible. It is possible as is virtually any other scenario a person can dream up that cannot be tested or contradicted with fact.

My contention is that there is a great amount of uncertainty about how to interpret the evidence from nature. I think that someone would be foolish to say that it can only point to one conclusion or that it even strongly favors one conclusion at this point.

I am reading Stoebel's book on the subject now. There are some fairly impressive people in science who have finally come to the conclusion that evolution doesn't work after all this time of testing... because it never worked. They look at things that appear designed and make a very scientifically valid assumption- intelligence was involved.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip:
This thread is to discuss steps that I believe would be impossible for evolution to take due to intermediary steps that would not fit the evolutionary theory.

But, I thought that, with God, all things are possible.

This type of thinking is fruitless. YEC's will insist that creation is possible because God can do anything, yet some (but not all) will also say that it is impossible for God to have created using evolution. Regardless of whether we are YEC, OEC, theistic evolution, or in believe that the earth is sitting on an elephant riding on the back of a turtle, the fact is that God is completely capable of having created everything in any manner he wishes, including, but not limited to, slow changes over long periods of time, or instantly in six days.

Let's not belittle our own arguement by saying God can't do something, just because we don't think it happenned a certain way. </font>[/QUOTE]UTEOTW has indicated that the scientific "evidence" points toward an entirely naturalistic evolution.

This is the same evolution accepted by the athiest who says God has no power, because He does not exist.

So, therefore, if we can prove that there are steps in evolution that could NOT be caused by natural means, then we do two things: 1st we show that atheistic (completely naturalistic) evolution does not exist. and 2nd we show that if indeed God decided to create using evolution (which most of us creationists do not believe) then it is necessary for supernatural intervention to occur within those evolutionary steps.

If you take the view of UTEOTW, then you take the view that everything had to be created using naturalistic methods. Is this the view you wish to accept?

 

[UTEOTW]

That is only partially true.

I have said that I do not see any steps in evolution that could not be accomplished through natural means. I have also said that the particular outcome of humans at least implies some guidence by God.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Scott J:
John, You kind of have that backwards don't you? It is primarily those who favor evolution that say that God "could not" have created the world according to the literal interpretation of Genesis (unless of course He engaged in dishonesty by letting science interpret the data wrong).

Not at all. Here, on this bb, the contention has not been that it was impossible for God to create the earth in 6 days. The contention has been that the evidence suggests gradual change over time. It is some YEC's who have said that something is impossible. When someone with a YEC pov makes that claim, it comromises their credibility. In addition, the YEC's spend most of their time attempting to refute the evidence supporting evolution, but spend very little time providing evidentiary support for YEC creation.

Originally posted by Phillip:
UTEOTW has indicated that the scientific "evidence" points toward an entirely naturalistic evolution. This is the same evolution accepted by the athiest who says God has no power, because He does not exist.

That's a bit of a straw man arguement. Kinda like saying the KJV must be discarded because it is the same KJV used by Mormons. Just because someone uses a KJV, doesn't mean they're Mormon, nor does it mean that they follow the false doctrine of KJVOism. Similary, just because someone says that evidence suggests gradual change over time, that doesn't mean that person is an atheist, or even a non-Christian.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Johnv:
Originally posted by Scott J:
John, You kind of have that backwards don't you? It is primarily those who favor evolution that say that God "could not" have created the world according to the literal interpretation of Genesis (unless of course He engaged in dishonesty by letting science interpret the data wrong).

Not at all. Here, on this bb, the contention has not been that it was impossible for God to create the earth in 6 days. The contention has been that the evidence suggests gradual change over time. It is some YEC's who have said that something is impossible. When someone with a YEC pov makes that claim, it comromises their credibility. In addition, the YEC's spend most of their time attempting to refute the evidence supporting evolution, but spend very little time providing evidentiary support for YEC creation.

YEC's are spending their time HERE refuting evidence supporting evolution for two major reason:

1. The thread just happens to be about evolution.

2. One of the scientific reasons for such as old Earth is required before the evolutionary theory can even work. If evolution is defeated, then old earth is not necessity from that point of view, then we can start focusing on earth age itself.

In final response to that portion of your post, the fact that certain YECs have made false claims certainly that other groups have not made false claims either. If there is a false claim on this thread, please deal with that specific claim based on a specific post, then by all means debate that post; but let us try to stay away from the generalities that add nothing to our knowledge on either side.

Originally posted by Phillip:
UTEOTW has indicated that the scientific "evidence" points toward an entirely naturalistic evolution. This is the same evolution accepted by the athiest who says God has no power, because He does not exist.

That's a bit of a straw man arguement. Kinda like saying the KJV must be discarded because it is the same KJV used by Mormons. Just because someone uses a KJV, doesn't mean they're Mormon, nor does it mean that they follow the false doctrine of KJVOism. Similary, just because someone says that evidence suggests gradual change over time, that doesn't mean that person is an atheist, or even a non-Christian.

I KNOW that evolution does NOT necessarily mean that the person is an athiest, but the evolution that we have been discussing here is pretty much completely naturalistic, the same as believed by athiests; and I also appologize to UTEOTW for assuming that he does not believe that God did not have a hand in his belief of the evolutionary steps.

HOWEVER, THIS particular thread is to discuss mutations that cannot occur using naturalistic evolution. The WHOLE POINT of THIS thread is to discuss and debate any particular steps that cannot or could not occur naturalistically without supernatural intervention. Your conclusions of what we are trying to discuss or what the YEC and OEC are claiming or should be doing is the strawman here.

Let's keep the threaad focused and if you want to open a thread on the general beliefs of each, then do so, but this thread is SIMPLY regarding steps in the theory of evolution which are at question to naturalistic techniques.

Your input is appreciate, but if we can let's try to keep it on the subject of this thread which is steps in evolution that can not occur without supernatural intervention. You are free to debate either side, but debate the issues, not the people's overall beliefs of YEC, OEC, Evolution, atheism, theism, etc.
THANK YOU!

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Johnv:
the YEC's spend most of their time attempting to refute the evidence supporting evolution, but spend very little time providing evidentiary support for YEC creation.

By the way, if my response to this statement was not clear, I feel I should treat it seperately, so here goes:

First, if it is shown that evolution is not possible without some form of supernaturalism, then we defeat atheistic evolution.

Second, if it is shown that evolution is not possible period, then we show Young Earth, because billions of years are required for the evidence presented by the evolutionists.

Third, Our argument is simple. As a YEC, we believe in God's omnipotence, that He can snap his fingers and make an on-going and functioning universe, complete with people, in 6 days: Our argument is that the Bible just happens to be the ONLY credible witness for the beginning of the universe and the Earth, not the "evidence".

This should be quite self-explanatory.

 

[Archeryaddict]

the second law of thermo-dynamics

http://objective.jesussave.us/slot.html

 

[UTEOTW]

"If there is a false claim on this thread, please deal with that specific claim based on a specific post, then by all means debate that post; but let us try to stay away from the generalities that add nothing to our knowledge on either side."

I would love to see a specific young earth claim.

In this particular round (over the last week or two) we see to have received mostly incredulty and speculation. Incredulty in the sense that it has been claimed that some things are too complex to have evolved without providing mechanistic reasons why it could not happen. The speculation seems to fall into two camps. One is that we don't know if all of time and space operates under the same physical laws so how can we know what happened at places distant either in time or space from us today. This is done without giving a reason to suspect that things were different and ignoring areas where we can measure the rules in the past. The second is alternatives to how the evidence could have been formed. We get speculative but general answers but no details and certainly nothing that better explains the data or that shows any specific weakness in the normal interpretation.

"Second, if it is shown that evolution is not possible period, then we show Young Earth, because billions of years are required for the evidence presented by the evolutionists."

In response to this, I am going to copy over a response I made to Scott yesterday on another thread that seems to apply. The main thing I want to know is what prevent microevolution from becoming macro? The processes are the same and the difference to me seems to be that micro is what you get in the short run from such processes and macro is what you get in the long run.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2714/4.html#000050

"Macroevolution is not occurring around us."

How do you know? IF evolution has happened, the time frames are much too long for new families and orders and such to have been observed forming in real time.

But I think even you will acknowledge that microevolution happens. I think I could likely even provide you with examples of observations of new species that you would accept. So, where is the dividing line? What prevents the kinds of changes we do observe from accumulating into macroevolution.

Even the development of a new class, such as the mammals from the reptiles, happens as a series of speciation events. I can even walk you through an extensive and detailed set of transitional fossils connecting the mammals and reptiles. And each step consists of just simple changes. Things you would accept as mere microevolution. But over the course of 100 million years or so, it leads to a new class.

"The mechanism for macroevolution has never been observed nor has it been recreated in a lab."

It is a collection of mechanisms, not just one. One of the more promenient would have to be mutation. This we have observed forming new genes with new functions.

Another would be natural selection. Again, I am sure you could easily think of examples of this with which you are familiar.

Another would be sexual selection. I imagine that this is a process most of us have participated in. (No kids for me, yet, so no results from my selection.)

Another method is recombination. Again, this is something we have observed. Look up chimeric genes for examples.

Another would be gene exchange. Anyone familar with the problems of antibiotic resistance should understand the advantages to the bacteria about being able to swap genes around between bacteria both of the same species and of different species.

Another would be migration. Surely you can see how animals that migrate to somewhere new can become geographically separated from others of the same species and can start adapting to their new conditions.

Another example is gene flow. Remember those animals above that migrated and began adapting to a new niche? What if a few of them make it back to the original population later? They just might bring in new genes that were not part of the original population.

So we have observed some of the mechanisms that lead to macroevolution.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Archeryaddict:
the second law of thermo-dynamics

http://objective.jesussave.us/slot.html

The page that you link to has some problems. The most glaring are that it mistates and misapplies the second law. It claims that the ordering of genes would be a prohibited increase in order. These are two different type os order. Furthermore, local decreases in entropy are allowed provided that the entropy of the universe increases in the process. Otherwise you would not be able to do ANYTHING that increases order. No growth, no manufacturing, no life. Entropy can be locally decreased through the use of energy.

It may be best to give an actual statement of the second law from an actual textbook to show how they get the definition wrong. My thermodymanics textbook states the second law as follows.

"No apparatus can operate in such a way that its only effect is to convert heat absorbed by a system completely into work."

"No process is possible which consists solely in the transfer of heat from one temperature level to a higher one."

"It is impossible by a cyclic process to convert the heat absorbed by a system completely into work."

Introduction to Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics Smith and Van Ness 4th Edition 1987

Now, tell us which of these statements prevents evolution from happening.

Second, give us one hypothesized step in, say, the evolution of man from our last common ancestor with the other apes that violates the 2LOT. It would help to show your work.

The disorder that is part of the application of entropy is a statistical concept about how things are viewed at a molecular level. Let me give you an analogy.

Let's say I have one mole of nitrogen gas and one mole of oxygen gas. I mix them in a spherical cyclinder. Now, let's suppose that somehow all of the oxygen molecules end up in the top half of the sphere and all of the nitrogen molecules in the bottom half. How many different ways can you look at this mixture and se the same thing? The only way is to rotate the sphere about an axis running through the top and bottom. The gasses have taken on a very ordered and highly unlikely state. The entropy is low.

Now imagine the gasses mix. Oxygen and nitrogen spread evenly through the sphere. Now, every view you take of the sphere has the same appearance. There is no order to how the molecules are distributed. The molecules are distributed in a very probible state. The entropy is high.

(You actually need to add a logarithm in there.)

This is profoundly different than the type of disorder most people think of.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Phillip:
... if it is shown that evolution is not possible without some form of supernaturalism, then we defeat atheistic evolution.

Since no one on this board has ever supported atheistic evolution, that's a nonissue. As far as supernaturalism, IMO, nothing that comes from God is devoid of supernaturalism. This is true on a daily basis, in the most minute of events in our daily lives.

... if it is shown that evolution is not possible period, then we show Young Earth, because billions of years are required for the evidence presented by the evolutionists.

Far from. If it is shown that evolution is not possible, it does not automatically support a young earth. It only shows that life did not undergo gradual change over time.

As a YEC, we believe in God's omnipotence, that He can snap his fingers and make an on-going and functioning universe, complete with people, in 6 days

No problem. If that's how it happenned, feel free to post the evidence for such so it can be reviewed.

Our argument is that the Bible just happens to be the ONLY credible witness for the beginning of the universe and the Earth, not the "evidence". This should be quite self-explanatory.

No one necessarily disagrees with that. What is disagreed with is the contextual intent of Genesis creation story. The fact that this is so should not cause Christians to loose sleep ot separate from each other, however. We disagree over the contextual intent of many scriptural accounts, such as revelation, the number of days and which day of the week Jesus died and rose, the literalness of the parables, the identity of the fourth person in the fire with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, etc etc.

To be honest, I think we spend way too much time discussing the literalness of Genesis, and an insufficient amount of time discussing what Genesis tells us about who God is, what He is, and why he made us.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

So we have observed some of the mechanisms that lead to macroevolution.

No. This assumes facts not in evidence. You cannot say that any mechanism leads to macroevolution until you actually observe it doing so in nature. You can get one step closer to the claim be creating the effect in a lab.

You have simply taken some observed processes and assumed that it leads to macroevolution because that is what it "should" do according to the theory of evolution... not because that is in fact what is happening or that there aren't other plausible and even more likely projected outcomes.

By the way, all of the things you described would work to support my proposal that God created a set of animals whose descendents speciated based on the genetic traits inherited from their parents according to environment.

 

[Scott J]

Posted by Johnv: To be honest, I think we spend way too much time discussing the literalness of Genesis, and an insufficient amount of time discussing what Genesis tells us about who God is, what He is, and why he made us.

The "literalness" of Genesis or lack thereof says a great deal about who and what God is and completely answers why He made us.

To relegate it to the realm of myth and allegory based on the interpretations of nature by fallible men is dangerous.

The Bible says God is all powerful, all knowing, and eternal. He transcends creation.

Evolution says that all the power need to create nature exists within nature. It declares that chance, not intelligent design, is the most likely explanation for the evidence. Its greatest advocates are struggling to find a way to reconcile the fact that nature must have had a beginning with their refusal to accept the supernatural as a first cause.

These are not small issues.

I am not the judge of any of you. How you rationalize things is ultimately between you and God. But for me, if I were an atheist I would believe evolution... and if I believed evolution I would almost certainly be an atheist- or at least not a Christian.

I can find no means of reconciling the idea that God did (virtually nothing for the TE's) nothing with relation to creation and His claim that He did everything.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Scott, you demand that we "observe" macroevolution reminds me of the time when I was a little boy and boldly told my mother that the hands on the clock did not move. "Yes they do", she said, "but they move to slowly for you to see them move". No, I just KNEW she was wrong, I could SEE the hands weren't moving. But she was right.

The observations of vestiges - including actual legs sticking out of real whales in modern times - is evidence that a change of a macro type has happened.

Run your fingers over your gums and feel the large root where your canine teeth are. How many species back from homo sapiens was it when the canine teeth were large enough to justify that extravagant root?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:

The observations of vestiges - including actual legs sticking out of real whales in modern times - is evidence that a change of a macro type has happened.

It may have happened or it might be that God has a purpose that He hasn't felt obliged to reveal to us yet.

Or, these things could have been the result of speciation from the originally created animals according to the genetic coding God wrote into them.

Run your fingers over your gums and feel the large root where your canine teeth are. How many species back from homo sapiens was it when the canine teeth were large enough to justify that extravagant root?

Zero.

I could never yield to an evolutionary origin for man. Allegory or not, Genesis clearly indicates that man above all was a special creation from the dust of the earth and that God specifically breathed into him the breath of life... making him a living soul.

Beyond that, the real fossil evidence used to support the ape to man evolution is very scant. Lee Stroebel quotes a scientist as saying that it would fit into a fairly small box. How many people know this? How many textbooks declare this along with the cartoon drawing of the supposed evolutionary progression of man?

Most of the claimed transitional forms are more imagination than fossil. They are drawn to include the fossils but completed according to how they "should" appear if evolution is true. You can't use the assumption that something is true in order to prove it. That is pure circular reasoning.